Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
Meta marked a Major victory in a trial for copyright Wednesday, when a federal judge ruled that the company had not violated the law when it formed its AI tools on 13 pounds of authors without authorization.
“The court has no choice but to grant a summary judgment to meta-meta in the affirmation of the complainants according to which the company violated the law on copyright by forming its models with their books,” wrote the judge of the American district court Vince Chhabria in a summary judgment. He concluded that the complainants had no sufficient evidence that Meta’s use of their books was harmful.
In 2023, a group of high -level authors, including actress Sarah Silverman, continued Meta, alleging that the technology giant had broken their copyright by forming its important language models on their work. Kadrey v. Meta was one of the first cases of its kind; Now there are dozens of similar judicial prosecution in matters of AI copyright in terms of American courts.
Chhabria had previously stressed that he planned to try carefully to know if the complainants had enough evidence to show that the use of the meta of their work would hurt them financially. “The key question in virtually any case where a defendant copied the original work of someone without authorization is whether to allow people to engage in this type of driving would considerably decrease the original market,” he wrote in judgment on Wednesday.
This is the second major decision in the world of copyright of the AI this week; Monday, judge William Alsup judge The use of anthropic material protected by copyright to train its own AI tools was legal. Chhabria referred to the summary judgment of Alsup in his decision.
Chhabria has been difficult to emphasize that her decision was based on the specific set of facts in this case – leaving the door to other authors to continue Meta for the violation of copyright in the future. “In the big scheme of things, the consequences of this decision are limited. It is not a collective appeal, so the decision affects only the rights of these 13 authors-not the innumerable others whose meta-wealth used to form its models,” he wrote. “And, as should now be clear, this decision does not represent the proposal that Meta use of documents protected by copyright to form its linguistic models is legal.”
It is a story in development. Please come back for updates.
